So we have a program called "Mais Médicos" (More Doctors) that were a collab between the Brazilian Government and the Cuban Dictatorship which consist of Cuba sending their professionals to work here. In the program they couldn't bring any relative and they were obliged to send 75% of their sallary to the Cuban Government. Our new ellected president offered Cuba that their professionals would receive 100% of their own sallary, easy process to stay in Brazil bringing their families with them. They just needed to go tru a test. And the Cuban government did not accepted.
TLDR = Cuba did not accept an agreement to give better opportunities to their citizen.
thoughts?

I never said that Sweden was better than Denmark. I said that Sweden is better than 9 of the 10 countries in the world. Denmark is better, but you're hopefully a fake flagger because Danish people doesn't have that low of a IQ like you.

The thing is, it's incredible easy to move up the financial ladder in the U.S. in your lifetime. If you are born poor, you should never stay poor, unless you're actually like fucking homeless with no clothes and food, and living in the wild.

My friend you are totally lost and seem to have zero clue about situation in your OWN country, if you are not ( I guess you are fake flag ) ff.
Your country have biggest issues on mental health in the world, your country has many epidemics going on ( ACTIVE ), opioid, adderral ( amphetamines ), other drugs. You have number #1 rate of murders of ALL countries who are listed as "Tier1", Hell, you even pass Russia with that and not to forget Russian crime usually targets its relative / close family member ( Its something like 40-50% ). You have places in your country where even police wont go without heavy support and it requires big reason ( small crimes turn cops as blind eye and they just fuck it because its "waste" of resources to deal with hoods, because thats your problem solving in USA. You just turn your back to it )
This is tiny millimeter fragment of overall situation in USA, Then lets not talk about your politics, You have people screaming Trump is shit but sametime they want Hillary as president? Oh really.. I would take rubber-boat to Africa or pray Canada to take me in.
After all, way our politics ( globally ) work is very bad and will end up every single country in very bad situation. If you have rules( Affecting your democratic opinion ) in politics-party its very bad. In example, you totally disagree about something and in democratic you should say what you want not what your party wants, but if you do so, you get kicked out ( if possible ) or if they want to do it easier way, they just heat you out ( wont explain, you can think your self ) In the end every system fails at some part and not ANY system should be locked, every single system ever built or ever going to built should have option to change.
Same time Mexico cartels run almost all drug business at USA, but population of USA wont allow borders to shut ( Hard disagree of sending military to borders )
But thats quite understandable since it has been proven that even during Pablo Escobar ( Medellin ) Cartel, your country was actually doing business with them instead shutting down Coke business.

Easy compared to what? Here is a quote from Wikipedia regarding economic mobility:
"A 1996 paper by Daniel P. McMurrer, Isabel V. Sawhill found "mobility rates seem to be quite similar across countries."
However a more recent paper (2007) found a person's parents is a great deal more predictive of their own income in the United States than other countries.
The United States had about 1/3 the ratio of mobility of Denmark and less than half that of Canada, Finland and Norway.
France, Germany, Sweden, also had higher mobility, with only the United Kingdom being less mobile.

You said "it's incredible easy to move up the financial ladder in the U.S.". It doesn't seem to be incredibly easy if so many countries do it better than the U.S., which is why I wanted to what's your basis for that claim. If you compare to something like North Korea, then sure it's easy. But if you compare to the rest of the developed world, then it's definitely not "incredibly easy".
And yes, lower mobility =/= unsuccessful economical system, but you were talking about mobility specifically.

Easy as I later explained that, if you are born poor in America, then you will never remain poor, unless you have the surplus of african americans and mexicans in this country, which really degrades the value.
Suburban Cities in America are some of the strongest in the world, however, the image of our country is marred by the ethnic surplus evident in our urbanized cities.

Every time it has ben tried there were violent actions, such as what they did to Allende in Chile. Also those countryies (mainly the richers in natural resources) are under thight economical rule of multinational corportations and states such as the US.

There never was any real working communism anywhere in the world. It always nearly instantly was abused by smart but greedy people to turn it into a dictatorship. Pinochet was a dictator. Chile didn't have communism, okay. But so what? What went on in Chile wasn't much different than what went on in Soviet Russia or Cuba...

I never said there was real communism. Real communism means no state, classes, money, private ownership. This is clearly impossible in our current world. Socialism is used to achieve communism, but no country has gone any further than socialism, and it never works which is why it should never be implemented again. And yeah, I know Pinochet was a dictator, but he was also a nigga

"lots of people didn't like it and wanted a new system"
How many % of US citizen hates USA? Go google it and get surprised. And thats only official numbers, they are always lower than reality. Yeah. Capitalism works. sure.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Americanism

The main reason people hate America is because of its foreign policy, not capitalism, it even says that on the Wikipedia page you sent.
Btw, just a question. Why do you think all of Europe is capitalist? Why do you think almost all of North America is capitalist? Why do you think all of Oceania is capitalist? Why do you think almost all of Asia is capitalist? No, it can't be because it works, can it? I mean if socialism and communism are so good and people love them so much, why aren't they being implemented around the world? Why aren't people electing socialist and communist governments, rather they are constantly voting for capitalist parties? Surely it can't be because capitalism is a success?

Dont need to:
South Korea
Great Chinese Famine
The Great Purge
Red Terror
I aint gonna list you anymore. I believe you have never seen socialism any closer. I know a few cubans and I know their situation and its not good as you think. Good afternoon sir.

The living standard of the poor and the middle class has never been better. These 200 rich people have also most likely provided jobs for millions of people. Also, these people most likely have busted their asses of for years too accumulate their wealth.
Ofcourse its not a perfect system, but atleast it gives everyone the oppurtunity to be successful.

"Ofcourse its not a perfect system, but atleast it gives everyone the oppurtunity to be successful."
this statement alone proves that you have no idea what you're talking about.
This site is not a great place to discuss this but I would advise you heavily to read a bit more about economic disparity.

"The living standard of the poor and the middle class has never been better. " thanks due to advancements in technology, not capitalism or socialism lmao.
Norway is one of the richest countries in the world with free public school up to university and universal healthcare. Oslo has a population of a 600.000 with 13 universities.
The whole country of Gabon with 2 million people have a single university.
Do you really have to audacity to claim that you have the same opportunity of rising to the top with someone from Subsaharan Africa or Southeast Asia? Why do you think the poorest 75 countries(ruined either by capitalist countries or capitalism itself) do not have a single executive at a top 500 company?
Are you this ignorant or just ignoring the facts? Face it Mr Norway. Capitalism is creating an unbridgable economic gap in the world and it will only get worse.

>thanks due to advancements in technology, not capitalism
Which system do you think incentivized innovation and technological advancement by actually rewarding those who put effort into improving the world? Hint: It's not socialism
Norway is not a socialist country, they have a massive amount of natural resources and got where they are due to capitalism and trading their resources with neighbouring capitalist countries
Which countries are working to improve living conditions in developing countries right now?
I could've put more effort into my comment but then I decided I have better things to do

"Which system do you think incentivized innovation and technological advancement by actually rewarding those who put effort into improving the world"
This a baseless, ignorant and easily refutable claim often used to promote capitalism. Earliest theories of capitalism(liberal economy doctrines etc.) has been around since 1600's while humans have been improving their lives for tens of thousands of years with constant progression and technological advancements.
Never said Norway was a socialist country, didn't even imply it. Just pointed out that there isn't a chance for everyone to rise to the top. Not even close. Read some Durkheim and learn how capitalism drives people to immense rates of suicide, both the "successful" and not.
"Which countries are working to improve living conditions in developing countries right now?"
The same countries that exploited, mass-murdered, and enslaved, those "developing countries" for greedy capitalistic and imperialistic gains.
You can't get out of this with elementary level capitalist propaganda mate. sorry

1. Guess when Technology started it's rapid, exponential I might even say, growth?
static2.uk.businessinsider.com/image/5ad..
2. Everyone can have a good life in Norway, I don't understand what your point is. Also yes I agree we need better mental healthcare.
3. I agree that it was terrible but can you really pinpoint it on capitalism? Did socialist countries like the Soviet union not commit atrocities? Do you know who Pol Pot is, Mao? Capitalism made it so nowadays trade between countries is more profitable than war, that's why now the world is more peaceful. Nowadays capitalist countries are working very hard to try and repair what they did. What is Russia doing for Ukraine?

i mean come on, basic knowledge of history will tell you technology has taken a significant step forward, in terms of rate of development, over the last 500 years and more so over the last 100 years.
not comparing the impact of individual discoveries like fire to shit in the 20th century, but R&D was not a big focus until the renaissance, and it was quite clearly the economic prospects that caused that change.

if were going off existing statistics show me a (edit- individual) capitalist system that killed roughly 100 million people (not even gonna include the timeframe it occurred cus that just makes it impossible).
with regards to stats (as you said its impossible so idk where your argument comes from, good job showing a problem in your own argument whilst not giving another source of reasoning), just look at major societal developments (that until recently revolved primarily around technological (or philosophical) developments) over the 200,000 years we've been around... youre not gonna see an EXPONENTIAL growth.

capitalist countries arent working hard to repair anything. 'we' send our armies into the middle east to destabilize or overthrow governments. we use economic sanctions and trade agreements to exercise control over the economies of developing nations. what have we really rebuilt, in afghanistan, in iraq? we just created terrorist organisations like taliban, al qaeda, and now IS. and a power vacuum for them to stop into. it was mostly the americans but we all helped.
what is even more profitable than just trading in a mutually beneficial honest agreement, is to force an agreement where we get by far the biggest share of the profit. there are many cases in capitalism where people are incentivized to act against the common interest because it it is beneficial to their personal interest. this gets people killed too.

yes thats totalitarian, its not socialist. it would be socialist if the people had an equal share in the profits from that 70%, but you dont get much. you have the "bad" part of communism, the repression, without the "good" part, equality. arguably its worse than the USSR economically. but you do have enough to eat and there is peace, so thats good.

the USSR were the first country to launch a man into space. they built advanced machinery, for farming, for war. you can say many bad things about communist Russia, but not that they were technologically inferior. so, your blanket statement that socialism doesnt create an incentive for innovation is at least not completely correct. imo it strange to assume that invention only happens when you have a small chance to make millions with it. people just invent things. theyve always been doing it.

you look like a typical russian communist who justifies killing all rightist opposition and forcing people to work for "progress".
all the achievements we had in space industry and nuclear weapons are because of broken lives of people:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharashka
and i also laughed at "farming". my ancestors who were working as peasants in a kolhoz were starving and had no rights to relocate from the kolhoz to a city.

sorry, i just didnt believe that you really say it and thought i just misunderstood you.
repressions on people don't actually help your economy, it's just a typical communist myth.
read this: economics.mit.edu/files/8702
tldr: voxeu.org/article/stalin-and-soviet-indu..
won't respond you anymore, i already lost too much time arguing with russian communists, i saw these kinds of arguments ("industrialization", "the first human in space") many times, it's not interesting. have a good evening.

man im not saying it was fun or that it was the best course that russia could take, but they did achieve some things. i was responding to a comment saying they didnt achieve much technologically, which is just untrue.
its like youre getting mad at me for saying hitler built highways. he did. he also killed millions of people. good and bad things happen in the world. its not just black and white.

you don't get me. i (and the article i linked) don't argue about the moral side of repressions. i (and the article i linked) say that repressions werent necessary to "achieve" things that ussr achieved.
have a good one again.

i agree there. the sacrifices your people were forced to make were unjust and its one of the most terrible things that happened in human history, the amount of russians that died in the USSR after WW2, its really terrible. im not trying to deny that.

im also not saying that it was necessary to do what stalin did to achieve technological growth. i think that killing millions of people isnt good for the economy.
im just saying that the USSR had remarkable technological capabilities when you look at the state of the country shortly after the world wars, and the state of the economy. it shows how much perseverance the russian people have. you went head to head with those crazy americans for decades.

fee.org/articles/africa-is-getting-riche..
"Do you really have to audacity to claim that you have the same opportunity of rising to the top with someone from Subsaharan Africa or Southeast Asia?"
I never stated that Africans have the same oppurtunities as a Norwegian citizen. Ofcourse it would be harder for an african, but the oppurtunity is still there. Or do you have the audacity to claim that it is impossible for an African citizen to join the richest 1%? And dont blame the problems of Africa on capitalism, lets just forget about geopgraphy, education, culture, religion etc.
"Why do you think the poorest 75 countries(ruined either by capitalist countries or capitalism itself) do not have a single executive at a top 500 company?"
Could it be because noone of the top 500 companies come from the 75 poorest countries in the world?

The article you've posted is pretty well-written by a credible analyst. It misses out on a tiny detail though. The fact that Africa already is literally the richest continent on Earth in underground resources and the poorest continent on Earth due to centuries of enslavement, colonization, genocides, exploitation of the aforementioned resources due to your beloved capitalism and the imperialistic tyrannical countries that adopted it. Maybe open up a history book and read a bit about what Leopold II did to the Congolese or Churchill the Indians.
I guess free education in a developed country does not always tantamount to good or unbiased education.
"Could it be because noone of the top 500 companies come from the 75 poorest countries in the world?"
Thanks for reiterating and agreeing with my point btw.

The article puts it plain and simple. Africa is doing better thanks too capitalism. At the same time I can name several countries that are thriving thanks too capitalism. Could you please name me a truly socialist country with a generally high living standard and true freedom of speech?
You're just as biased as me. And also, I did not agree with your point. Look at the top companies in your country, how many foreigners work as executives? Almost noone? Why is that? Because top companies generally always hire domestically.
Either way, have a nice evening!

No, but people around them have realized their marketing value and used them as a conduit to make large amounts of money. The Kardashians cant help it that people find their bullshit lives entertaining. If I could make the same amount of money by getting filmed all day long and people making makeup products with my name on it, ofcourse I would do it.

i guess that the only fact that the main goal of capitalism is to make small group of people enormous rich by going over the heads of other people while some of them live in poverty makes that ideology not fucking good as everybody think

Its true that some people most likely are gonna be very rich. But do you think these people sit on their money like Scrooge McDuck?
No, they start new businesses, creating more jobs, resulting in a higher living standard for the poor and the middle class. Everyone has the same oppurtunity as the richest 1%, if they are willing to work for it.

Yeah, that would be great, but not all the people with so much money are doing such things. I really respect people who spend their money for things you said, but i know many rich businessmen who spend their money only for themselves and their family, and that is really bad, that's one of the reason i sympathize with socialism

Is it bad that a person who has earned his money spends them on himself and his family? Thats a narrow way to look at things.
Let me ask you this; have you ever worked somewhere and felt that your coworkers are doing a significantly worse job than you, but still get payed the same. Is that a world you would want to live in? Not me.

i am talking about businessmen like Igor Sechin, do you think it is ok to spend money of people that live in this country and that has got the same rights for oil and other natural resources like him? Maybe my london is not good enough to explain the whole shit of russian businessmen (i mean dollar millioners and billioners), so you can read something about Dimitry Medvedev, Igor Sechin, Alexey Mordashev and Alisher Usmanov, this is just a little list of faggots who steal the people's resources, they are legalised corruptioners, that's why I hate such manifestations of capitalism. Yes, ofc I know that situation in EU and USA is much better in things like this, but untill billioners of my country will not realise how bastards they are, I won't change my opinion about this ideology

Point me the good thing socialism has done. I'll be point the good ones from capitalism. During the cold war, we were under Military Regime and was the most successful economically and socially (educational, security) time in Brazil's history. Finally militaries are being ellected again and the right wing will be back in Latin again.

There's starvation in Brazil, poverty, lots of homeless people. USA is filled w/ homeless people as well, aggressive capitalism make people be one paycheck away from being homeless.
Can we also say that capitalism sucks? While in cuba at least people have a place to live and food to eat.

First of all. Your concept of Cuba is totally wrong. They have places to live and a small portion to eat, but hey? Can they go in McDonalds? Or call a delivery? Or even buy a new Pc? Is there any cuban HLTV user? OMG fuck that, they have food and place to live. Look! We have it too. Being homeless isn't just a capitalism 'thing'. There are homeless in communism/socialism too! Look at N Korean documentaries. As you said, theyre one paycheck away from being homeless but they're close to being richier and giving other opportunities to make others. I don't see any socialist/communist giving money to the poorest but take Bill Gates's example and if you're rich enough donate 28$Bi to the poorest!

Bolsonaro has the potential to become a dictator aswell and why would they want a new contract that grants them no more money etc?
Dont get me wrong, in my opinion the doctors should be able to go whereever they want. I have to admit, I dont even know/knew that people from Cuba cant just go and live somewhere else?
I mean what holds them back from just going to brazil on their own?

Probably or do they do? See, why do you just throw something like that out there, when you dont know yourself?
Its just stupid to make such a statement if you have no clue.
So, id be glad to know whats actually the case here, as I have no idea.

What has this to do with fakeflagging?
Yes, it was like this in the DDR. But Im talking about Cuba, right?
America and germany are both democracies. And still, in only one of them the death penalty is (partly) lawful. Same ideology doesnt mean the countries are the same.

because only a fakeflagger wouldn't know that what i wrote because in Germany you learn stuff like that i guess, i mean it's part of your history
and what have the last 3 lines to with anything we were talking about? We are talking about Cuba and Germany, right?

I am educated in german/european history and I have personal interest in it aswell.
I know how shitty the DDR was and how they basically imprisoned people etc.
What what has any of this to do with cuba? Its a different country and Im interested to know, if the people there are not allowed to live somewhere else and if yes, if its hard at all to flee. Afaik there are alot of countries that let political refugess in their country, so yeah.
As long as we dont know what actually the case over there, why should I compare it to the DDR?

No more money you mean 75% of their income? Thats slavery. And Bolsonaro wants the population to be armed, free market, privatize most of the state-owned enterprises, negotiate with the rest of the world with bilateral agreements, the right for the citizen to defend themselves and wants a minor state. How can he become a dictator giving more freedom to the population?

Im not saying, that whats happening is good. Not at all.
You are right, that is basically slavery. I mean okay, taxes can get quiet high in germany aswell, but 75% is definately beyond any reason.
Im also not a fan of Bolsonaro aswell. I think people dont understand, that the things he wants have huge downsites aswell and are not the solution to the problems.
For example you say "privatize most of the state-owned enterprises". Okay, I know the arguements and I get them. They make sense, Im not denying that. the thing is, private companies can and WILL build the same kind of empires. The only difference is, that its not the state thats making money from it, but the CEOs etc of those companies.
Privatize too much is only a better solution, if you increase taxes for people with higher income by ALOT.
Also dont forget how private companies act on a free market. Its not helping the people. People will start exploiting the power they have with their companies. And then you will have the lobbyists from those private companies, that will try to make deals with the government. And be assured that they will be succesfull, just like they are in any other country.
Also the problems arent the guns, its the people that use them. Arming everyone is a shortterm solution at most.
Im not saying I know how to find solutions for the problems in brazil, especially with the armed gangs etc, but that doesnt meant I shouldnt criticize for example Bolsonaro.

Look. He privatizing them and opening the borders for others companies. For example, the only company that extract petroleum here is Petrobrás which is the most valuable one that we have (He defended privatizing it or just part but hes not sure now) and also being in corruption scheme since left gained the power and luckly Lula is in jail bcz of it. As petrobrás is the only one here, they sell everything the price they want making a monopoly right? He defend that other oil companies should come to brazil and practice the free market and we should agree corruption plus the fact that our state is inneficient that letting only petrobras able to extract and sell pretroleum and its derivatives is not something smart. You said that private companies do not help the people. Well i disagree! Job is the most important thing a companie can give to you and a lot of people demonize private industries because they gonna exploit the poorest. Well thats not true, and you can always leave the job yk. People are so afraid of capitalism and they think they'll be slaves working 16h/d and thats not how it works. As a brazilian i'll tell you no one want to invest here anymore because the last governments (unfortunately all left) created an hostile environment for the entrepreneur (even the small and medium one) that they're not willing to give any money in taxes.
THIS MATTER IS SO COMPLEX I COULD BE TALKING TO YOU ALL DAY BUT ILL RESUME: No one wants to invest in Brazil and the last governements did everything they could to not let any other company invest. We have no jobs and only free market is a reasonable and the right decision and the market itself can deal with its own problems.
You talked about guns and people being the problem. And I agree with you. Here we have a pretty open market for guns but back in 2003(Lula's election) they came up with disarming the population and in 2005 a plebiscite was made and the population said NO. They did not respect and forcedly implanted. The results? Crime and killing rates grew up enormously (im not telling you theres studies and numbers) and now we proved this did not worked at all (60K killings per year), and i'm frankly telling you, the same is going to happen in UK. When you disarm the people, the armed crimes starts to raise. Also this has not to do 100% with self defense, but also defending the constitution and democracy. If someone whos in power try to implant a dictatorship on even the army tries it aswell, if you are not armed to defend your country what you gonna do? If the force is in only one side how the other will defend themselves?
Thats it bro, i know i wrote a lot but the situation is not so easy and Bolsonaro will have a lot to do and we (voters of him) will be watching everything he does cause we are tired of left, corruption and lies. The pression over him on choosing the ministers right now is so big you dont even imagine. The population is now feeling something different and this feel is good. Cya bro

I love when a guy who lives in a capitalist country, lives on capitalist things, breathes capitalism, does nothing to help the poorest people who would benefit from socialism and still think he can talk about what socialism is best.
Just move to Cuba / Venezuela / North Korea and be happy with your ideology. but of course, you will continue there with your iPhone, playing your video game, enriching in this capitalist system, and continue to ignore the poorest.
sorry for bad english

North Korea is not a democratic socialism, it's a totalitarian dictatorship. Nazi's also called themselves "socialists" and UK is not a kingdom so names mean shit.
Cuba's economic problems arose because US knew socialism was going to work eventually so they just sanctioned the shit out of a little country and made their economy collapse. Believe me if your country kept its capitalist economy and US sanctioned the shit out of it Brazil wouldn't be in a much better financial situation than Cuba.

Brazil already has an incredibly weak and problematic economy. Your public debt is insanely high. China is literally pouring money to keep Brazil's economy from collapsing. What you just said proves nothing. It doesn't matter if it's US or China that uses tariffs and sanctions.
My point was if your biggest trade partner cuts you off from the rest of the world your economy WILL collapse whatever doctrine you use.

I wrote a graduation thesis comparing Middle-Eastern and Latin American countries' economic and social development during the 20th century. I'm not saying socialism is the answer. But capitalism is surely not. Be open to new ideas man. Peace to you and your country

I'm done with this debate and this is the only time I'll answer both your comments but you really need to read some economics mate. It's not about being dependant on US particularly. It's about getting sanctioned by your biggest trading partner+in this situation US literally cut off Cuba from the rest of the world. Cuba is a small island nation with 10 million people, of course their economy will collapse. It's was never about the economic ideology they were using.
About your other thing, technological advancement is bound to happen. It's been happening since forever. You're right that horrific human rights abuses in order to gain profits and workers being used like mules allowed by capitalism has sped up some processes etc. Nazis also helped medicine by conducting unspeakable experiments on prisoners. According to you we should keep doing that too I guess.

Capitalism and socialism mixed together is better than only capitalism and only socialism. Free health care is good, free education is good, government taking care of highways and streets is good, government not letting businesses to exploit workers is also good, ability to make money if you supply the demand is also good, ability to make more money than your competitor is also good because it drives improvements. That's socialist and capitalist things. All are good.
Don't use shithole corrupted countries where socialism is only declared but not really implemented as an example of socialism. Use countries where socialist policies are really implemented like whole western Europe.

I never said you did say anything about my country, I said never comment on anything about my country, because I clearly have to use your flawless logic. I never said you didn’t know more about me, but you still aren’t an expert, and I can still comment about a clear problem in your country

"They've never seen socialism. The real one."
First that the creator of socialism is a totally incoherent one since he cares so much for people that two of his children killed themselves because they had a miserable life, and Marx was sustained by the woman. It is very easy for a man who does not want to work to create an ideology by saying that the state that has to sustain it.
hat is why I always say, if I could go back in time I would go back and erase Marx from history, I bet he would save millions of people who were hit by his utopian, petty and murderous ideas.

I would do the same. These EU guys think cuz they live not even close to these countries and their media is full of socialist that socialism is the best thing in the world. I'm sorry I was not clear when i said the real one. Cuz the real one is only hunger and poorness but they will die standing for something they probly wont see a single fucking day.

now imagine you are Cuban government, doctors are your girlfriend and Brazilian government is richer and more handsome man than you. This richer and handsome man wants to invite your girlfriend to a party without you. What would you do?

Sometimes I feel embarrassing to read some these opinions from my fellows here in Brazil. Mostly of them never live in a socialism country and they`re blaming Europeans saying their education is poor? pff What a shame year and period to live! Let`s study boys! pls

capitalism is working, it just doesnt need work really well for most people to work. it needs to just work a little bit so that there is competition and growth and people have some money to spend. it doesnt have to be optimal. its very resilient actually. capitalist countries are continually broke or in debt and their governments fail, but they survive.
and i dont think capitalism was ever planned, it just kind of happened. its a natural conclusion of a feudal system minus the aristocracy. wealth accumulates.

I answer you this. I have already wrote in this thread that none of these systems are working and both of them suck. You should never have system which is locked. There HAS to be room for changes in EVERY system. Sadly our politics do not work like that. You follow what your party says.
GOOGLE:
The originators of classical political economy—Adam Smith, David Ricardo, James Steuart, and others—created a discourse that explained the logic, the origin, and, in many respects, the essential rightness of capitalism.

You quite dont know what Capitalism is so please stop talk.
Capitalism = Classical political economy
The classical economists produced their "magnificent dynamics"[3] during a period in which capitalism was emerging from feudalism and in which the Industrial Revolution was leading to vast changes in society. These changes raised the question of how a society could be organized around a system in which every individual sought his or her own (monetary) gain. Classical political economy is popularly associated with the idea that free markets can regulate themselves.[4]
Now you talk without having zero clue even at 2018 you could have used 15 minutes to get some research, instead you give me 0 second answers without any clue. This is my last answer(again ) since you tried hard.

>The classical economists produced their "magnificent dynamics"[3] during a period in which capitalism was emerging from feudalism and in which the Industrial Revolution was leading to vast changes in society.
exactly. it was emerging. no one planned that. they just made theories that suited the data during and after the fact.
>Classical political economy is popularly associated with the idea that free markets can regulate themselves.[4]
in other words, bullshit.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_economy
can be applied to socialist and capitalist societies.
"Political economy, where it is not used as a synonym for economics, may refer to very different things. From an academic standpoint, the term may reference Marxian economics, applied public choice approaches emanating from the Chicago school and the Virginia school. In common parlance, "political economy" may simply refer to the advice given by economists to the government or public on general economic policy or on specific economic proposals developed by political scientists."
did i try hard enough now daddy?

> These changes raised the question of how a society could be organized around a system in which every individual sought his or her own (monetary) gain.
begging the question. it raised the question of how (economic) society could be be described as a system in scientific terms. and what was the best system of economy and government for a new era.
mathematically, socialism is perfectly valid. thats not where the issue is.

USA could be usefull for something, and nuke that shit island.
Just export this shit ideology, Venezuela, Chile had suffer enough with Cuba.
USA neocolonizing Cuba, it's a favor for the people in Cuba, if they don't want, just nuke that shit off

Lenin bro. Communism is one of the worst ways of dictatorship,like a country can be on the top of the world if the right person was in charge of it. But communists don't want that,+smarter slaves means bigger chance of a coup

Capitalism means private ownership of the means of productions. All Scandinavian countries have private ownership of the means of production, rather than public which would make them socialist.
In all three countries, there are rich people, and there are poor people, and they are not classless.
Current ruling party of Denmark: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venstre_(Denmark)
Since when was liberalism socialism?
Previous ruling party of Sweden (there is no party ruling Sweden at the moment): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_Social_Dem..
Social democracy is pro-capitalism, and since when did pro-capitalism and socialism go hand in hand?
Current ruling party in Norway: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party..
Since when was conservatism socialism?
Current ruling party in Finland: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_Party_(Finl..
Since when was liberalism socialism?
Free healthcare and education =/= socialism, and I think its you who doesn't know what capitalism is

I agree, you are right. If you view capitalism and socialism as only the ownership of the means of production, then most political parties in Denmark are not socialistic but only by name. The only true socialistic party in parliament only have around 8% of the votes.
But then you only have very few socialistic states in the world, as almost all countries have private companies.
But on a political world scale, Denmark is often referred to as socialistic. It's often mentioned in the US political debate. What is considered liberal in Denmark, would be considered very socialistic in the US.

Your prime minister had to come out and say this: "I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy,”
Source: thelocal.dk/20151101/danish-pm-in-us-den..
And it is true that most countries in the world have private companies, but that is because almost every country is capitalist or corporatist. Socialist countries such as Cuba only started to issue private licenses, because people were secretly running private services, such as taxi drivers and hairdressers, who made a profit, unlike doctors and teachers who were paid extremely low amounts of money. But even then, I don't think I can name any private company that operates in Cuba

You can actually see that speech from Lars Løkke on Youtube :)
He visited Harvard and held a speech while his son was attending Harvard.
I also wrote in #166 that we have a free market economy in Denmark, so I totally agree.
But I don't agree, that majority of Danes would say they hate socialism if asked.

Because most people associate socialism with social democracy, so free healthcare and education, that sort of stuff. I don't think they would associate socialism with the actual socialism that was tried, such as the USSR, Cuba, North Korea.
If you were to ask that question, I'd say most Danes like socialism, even in America 43% (somewhere around that number) of millennials like socialism. But if you were to ask what a model socialist country would be, their answer would most likely be a Scandinavian country or Canada, which are thought to be socialist but are capitalist countries

Yes, most people don't think about who owns the means of productions, as the definition of socialism or capitalism, but more the rights or privileges that potentially comes with it.
So it is more a discussion about who gets what share among workers/companies/government.
The classic discussion brought about by Marx about ownership, died a long time ago in the 20th century.

But that is still the definition of socialism. Free healthcare and education were never one of the core aspects of socialism. Socialism is against privatization, economic classes, profit. In Scandinavian countries, you have all of the aspects mentioned above. Having free healthcare and education doesn't suddenly make you socialist. It just means your country has insanely high taxes, and with those taxes, healthcare and education is funded, which makes it free (well it isn't really free, it's just really cheap). Just because the government provides something using taxpayer money, doesn't mean its socialism. Its like saying the military is socialism, or public transport is socialism

"The classic discussion brought about by Marx about ownership, died a long time ago in the 20th century."
I responded to that saying the public ownership of the means of productions is still the definition of socialism.
"Yes, most people don't think about who owns the means of productions, as the definition of socialism or capitalism, but more the rights or privileges that potentially comes with it."
I responded to that with the rest of my paragraph.

You said people define socialism by the rights and privileges that come with it. I responded saying this is not true.
Healthcare is a privilege, doesn't mean its socialism.
Education is a privilege, doesn't mean its socialism.
A military to protect its citizens is a privilege, doesn't mean its socialism.
Public transport is a privilege, doesn't mean its socialism.
If you don't see how my response is relevant, then you didn't read it right

Then you totally misunderstood what I wrote.
"The classic discussion brought about by Marx about ownership, died a long time ago in the 20th century."
I responded to that saying the public ownership of the means of productions is still the definition of socialism. - Where do I say that's not the definition?
On the contrary, when that is the definition, the discussion died a long time ago, because no European citizen or politician in their right mind would want to nationalize all private companies.
"Yes, most people don't think about who owns the means of productions, as the definition of socialism or capitalism, but more the rights or privileges that potentially comes with it."
- Just look at what people post in this topic. They argue about socialism more from the view of what is considered "socialist", and not from only the ownership of the means of production. Like I said, that discussion died a long time ago.

1) My bad, I misunderstood what you wrote about Marx's definition.
2) I can't care less about what people think socialism is, that doesn't mean that is what it is. It's like saying Hitler is a socialist. If many people say it, that doesn't mean it is true.

You have a very narrow definition of socialism. Socialism is a lot more than just the ownership of the means of production.
In a political debate it is kind of irrelevant to discuss if something is socialism or not. Free healthcare is free healthcare whether you call it socialistic or not.

No, my definition of socialism is not narrow at all, and is used by many people. You can't just change definitions to your liking. Free healthcare was never, and will never be the sole characteristic of socialism. Welfare doesn't define socialism. You can't have a free market and call yourself socialism, that would be market socialism and literally no one is a market socialist. Denmark is one of the most capitalist countries on Earth, so I don't care about your shit definition of socialism that makes you feel like Denmark is socialist.

I am pretty sure you can find a definition of some form of socialism, where you can argue that free healthcare is socialistic.
And you misunderstand me again. I am not writing that I think so. It is just reality that many if not most people think so. Have you not followed the debate about socialism in the US?
It is not I or Danes who feel that Denmark is particularly socialistic but more the rest of the world.

Free healthcare is socialistic, but it isn't a core value of socialism and can be part of a capitalist society.
You said yourself that most Danes wouldn't mind socialism, and that the Scandinavian definition of socialism is what you have right now.

I never argued that free healthcare was a core value of socialism. I am sure it never crossed someones mind in the 19th century.
What we have in Denmark, the prime minister put well in his speech in Harvard. So it is more other people who think of Denmark as being socialistic.

I'm not Arab, I've just lived in Dubai my whole life. I don't identify with any particular religion, but I believe in a god, and I believe religion does help with morals and gives people a purpose, but I also believe it creates certain problems

I don't know any Arabs who support Israel, but there are a lot who are neutral on the topic, and most who don't have any support is generally Palestinian.
Pretty much most Arabs I know are nonreligious here, but definitely no atheist Arabs. But when I go to Europe, I definitely notice a difference in the mentality of the Arabs living there. The ones there tend to be insanely religious and hate western values, well at least from what I have seen. The ones here aren't really religious, maybe a few prayers and they do Ramadan, but they all share western values and they don't let religion play a big role in their life

Kind of weird that they are more religious and hate western values when they live in the west. Maybe it's because they are Arabs from the poorer Arab countries and not the UAE?
The only two Arabs I have met outside of Europe was from Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. I met them in Singapore and funnily enough they liked western values. When I told them we have Danish kroner in Denmark and not Euros like in most other EU countries because we had an election about it, where the no side won, they were really impressed, that a decision like that was up to the people. One guy said to the other in Arabic: democracy ehh...

Yeah, all the people I saw in Europe were from Syria and Iraq and so on.
One concept Arabs find strange though is democracy, so they aren't used to it and find it strange when such elections happen, like the one in Denmark for the Danish Krone

I'd say we have experienced socialism from our neighbors and looks like it's not a pretty view. You have seen shit about socialism/communism and still fall for this fairy tail. I don't even need to tell you, just look at the countries that actually declare themselves as socialist/communist and see if they're any good. You know, it's so easy to say socialism is good when you don't live in it. Just go ask the venezuelans, n koreans, cubans and a lot of others people who live in most wonderful ideology ever.

Look at what? You look at some countries and don't understand what you are seeing.
I think you need to educate yourself.
I live in a country that is probably a lot more socialistic in many areas, than the countries you mention, while still having a free market economy, that is one of the most competitive in the world.
In Denmark we have:
- Free healthcare. Going to the doctor and being omitted to hospital costs 0 kr.
- Free school system. Getting a university education is not only free, but you get payed €815/month while studying. So studying to become a doctor costs you nothing and you will get payed for 6,5 - 7 years.
su.dk/su/om-su-til-videregaaende-uddanne..
- First 2 years being unemployed you get €2500/month, also straight from university.
min-a-kasse.dk/satser-2018
- Unemployed for more than 2 years you get €1500/month indefinately, more if you have kids.
bm.dk/ydelser-satser/satser-for-2018/kon..
- We have some of the best worker rights in the world. Most people have 6 weeks of payed holiday a year, and have a 37 hour working week, some places with lunch included.
- Maternity leave is 18 weeks. Paternity leave is 2 weeks. And both parents get an additional 32 weeks leave they can share. And of course all weeks are payed but only €575/week.
borger.dk/familie-og-boern/Barsel-oversi..
We have it much better than the countries you mention, and somehow Denmark has not gone to shits.

DEFINITELY all because youre socialist and nothing to do with the centuries of monopolies and imperialism....
(also i like how you talk about not understanding what youre seeing, but then dont understand nordic military reliance on the US (hopefully youre not one of the idiots who thinks that because youre not at war you dont/won't spend on defence), nor the fact that its easier for nations with such a significantly small population that aren't the worlds best in anything, and have centuries of wealth built off the exploitation of others).... topkek when danes talk about inequality as if they have a foot to stand on that isnt just on the heads of now destroyed tribes.

i bet you get pissed when thinking about that fact that its not really socialism that made denmark one of the strongest nations in the world.
as for everything else, its actually factual. NATO takes care of you, you have a small, wealthy population (big surprise your government is able to take care of you), and were an imperial power (one of the wealthiest)...
sorry you dont wanna talk about it, but i guess it means theres nothing to say.

You have no idea what makes a country wealthy. Socialism doesn't make a country wealthy. Why do you even think that I would believe so?
Like I said. You know shit about anything, let alone what I get pissed about. I already realized that from your first post, so no point in wasting time on you.

you act as though socialism can help anyone using situational evidence, without acknowledging what it is that allows your country to have borderline socialist policies.
edit- can totally understand why thats hard to understand. believe that was #310

Talk about bad English and being stupid.
In the short sentence you forgot a ' in you're and English without capital E, a 'not' before contradictory' and 'I' without capital 'I'.
How retarded must you be when writing about someone else's bad English, that you make so many mistakes. Probably you learned English in the same 3. rate school you learned about economics ROFL

didnt i talk about history??? i mean cmon, can you even read/ do you know the difference between academic subjects? (literally only made one point regarding economics in my first comment). starting to believe you might actually be stupid and not having fun (a depressing life imo).
also topkek about you crying over me not spending the extra 3 seconds to correct minor grammatical and punctuation mistakes; whilst you reveal an actual misunderstanding of the english language by trying to call me out for contradictions. (btw its not hard to find something wrong in your sentence structure or word choice every other word (literally crying with laughter)... christ, work harder kid).

It was just ironic, that you questioned my English while yours are far from perfect. And yes, you did contradict yourself. Try find out where haha
But tbh, it is a little difficult to understand you, because not only is your English difficult to understand, but you are also a little stupid. Like this: "do you know the difference between academic subjects?" What is that even supposed to mean? haha
And why do you care about my life? I haven't written anything about yours because I don't give a shit about it. Same with my country. Why do you have the need to tell me about it, when I likely already know much more about it than you? I don't care about your country, that you are too embarrassed to show you are from.
And all posts from either of us have just proved how right I was, in my initial post to you. But ok, just continue to prove my point :)

well do you know the difference between history and economics? its a very simple question without much complexities... sorry for wondering whether your inability to understand seemingly simple sentences was because of your own inability which is undoubtedly worse than a native speaker...
also its hard to contradict myself without making a point, so please show me where my point was in #317. i mean cmon bruh ive even said im just baiting you and you still get dragged in, are you sad or just uncertain of your points?
the rest i didnt read.

you must have very basic or generalised knowledge of both to assume that. aspects of economics may be contained within history and knowledge of one may help with knowledge of another and they have moments of overlapping within theories, but to say they are two sides of the same coin is either your poor english again or incredulous stupidity.
simple explanation of why the differences is important in this case is because, i believe my only original point was pointing out that situational statistics does not prove a theory.
still haven't found that contradiction huh?

expected from socialism!
stories form the German Democratic Republic, and it mb was the "best" socialism country:
west germany paid money to the GDR when they (gdr) transfered political prisoners to west germany (u know, helping "brothers&sisters")
when GDR ran out of money, they started to imprision random ppl, made them to fake political prisoners to earn cash from the transfers. thats socialism!
they dont care about the ppl, all they care about is the system and the united party.
i mean capitalism doesnt care too, but you are able to do something for yourself!

People who fight in the name of collectivistic ideologies just aren't able to accept the fact that nothing is perfect and are willing to burn the world to the ground in the name of utopia rather than to use their freedom and sovereignity provided by individualistic, democratic systems of western capitalistic democracies.
It's always easier to blame the status quo on other people than to work on improvements on your own. Pathetic.

I mean Cubans taught those doctors and invested state money on them. BR was trying to poach them. I think Cuba gov is right here. Why don't BR try to poach american doctors who put themselves through school and so can move freely? BR trying to take advantage of cuba

Price to become doctor-X
Money paid by Cuba government for your education-0.98X
Money paid to cuba government-0X
To make their money back, they send their doctors to work in BR. Don't you think that's capitalist system? Treat cuba as a hospital rather than a state and see your point

I am not retarded but unlike USA and japan, in Cuba, Western europe and Asia, studying is heavily subsidized in hopes by government that they can create a value but if someone bolts after being invested on so much, then its a loss to government.

You don't understand the issues cuz your ideological bias with which you see things. there something calls it scholarship, maybe you are too uneducated to know about that :P.
But hey, you are a leftie, i understand why you are dumb

I'm a leftie? I supported a government exercising capitalist control over its citizen. IS there anything more autocratic than that? What do you mean by a leftie?
In these countries, the scholarship decreases the 0.02X they have to pay to about 0.001X or nothing. In USA, it takes about 250K$ to become a doctor. From a study I read about India, it takes some merit kids of some classes about 50$ in tuition fees to become a doctor. Now imagine this kid goes to america and keeps all his wages with himself. Government lost about 249950USD on this kid. Even in my own country of moldova, it takes at max 5k in tuition to become a doctor
If government of such a country (its about same in cuba I guess) gets in medical practitioners poached in a manner like this, how is it fair for its taxpayers?
That's what brazil is trying to do with cuban doctors and cuban government diverting part of their wages is just their return
Also, if you can understand things this simple, I have no more reason to reply to you

There's no such thing as free stuff, any public service is being paid from taxes, therefore this ppl debt with the STATE is none if any of them feel any debt is with the university and being the best professional that person can be around the world is the best way to pay that debt.
You are retarded and i don't want to talk to you anymore, sheepy. Go to Cuba, you live in a devolved country talking in your comfortable middle-class chair about what suffer the Cubans? the Argentinians? never go full retard

This retards socialist wannabes live in his comfortable middle-class chairs in richest countries, talking about the shithole that lives all South America with socialism ideology, stop using your feelings to think and use your brain. RETARDS

Except that socialism is a wide range of things. Healthcare in all its forms is socialism for example.
Also capitalism and socialism are not mutually exclusive, so the title of this thread is a bit retarded.

Honestly Brazil needs full on capitalism for a good decade to then go over to liberalism. Prove every socialist cunt wrong. There will be hell of a lot of people that move their business over there, ofc people will get used but it's better than the shithole it is now.

It will not happen in the next few decades. Brazil is a culturally protectionist country. The government is very fat with thousands (maybe millions) of unnecessary public jobs that need high taxes. This growth is supported by the acceptance of the "strong state" discourse. In each new government, they create public jobs for people with the same political ideal. The judiciary is also giant and with protectionist tendencies that interrupt or delay necessary advances. Recently the high court judges voted for a salary increase that will generate a cascade effect of wage increase. Any idea of ​​lowering state costs (including removing unnecessary jobs) will be considered a violation of citizens' basic rights. I already predicted that Bolsonaro would be elected when Dilma won in the last election and predict now that the few liberal measures will be insufficient and used to back a socialist government that will still point the finger saying that liberal capitalism does not work.
It's like what happened in Argentina. They have been for decades increasing the public debt .. they tried several renegotiations of the debt and now the right liberal government is considered guilty by crisis .. he neither could fulfill the promises of cut of expenses by the resistance of the system.
Socialism government is like crack or heroin .. it gives a good effect at first but over time it destroys everything. Getting out of addiction is more difficult than going back to addiction again. For me the Brazilian government dropped the crack, it will become a clean country and at the first opportunity it will return to drugs.